You are here

A smaller ETJ: Better for Asheboro?

ASHEBORO — Would it be a good move for the city to relinquish zoning control to the county over more than 3,600 parcels of land outside municipal boundaries? Or would such an action be something city officials could regret?

The question hangs in the balance following the regular November meeting of the Asheboro City Council.

At that meeting on Thursday, the council held a public hearing on a proposal to reduce the city’s ETJ, the area outside the municipal boundary in which the city legally exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Just two people spoke during the public hearing. One said that if the proposal would make it easier for development to occur he was in favor of it. The other asked how the move would affect her taxes. The answer was that it would not affect her taxes. She — and all other property owners in Asheboro’s ETJ — pay county property taxes.

ETJ residents do not pay city property taxes or receive city services. They cannot vote in city elections even though land development requests on their property must follow city land-use ordinances.

In some places, Asheboro’s ETJ extends up to two miles. City staffers developed a map with a much smaller ETJ. The smaller footprint eliminates areas where it might be too costly to extend utilities. It keeps those along strategic corridors or gateways into the city, as well as areas with identified economic development potential.

The city’s current ETJ encompasses approximately 18,000 acres; the proposal under consideration would keep just 6,000 acres and cede zoning control for the other 12,000 acres to the county.

The city originally notified 3,559 property owners in its ETJ about the proposal. Trevor Nuttall, the city’s community development division director, told council members Thursday that an additional 70 property owners had been discovered who might not have been in the initial mailing. Letters had been mailed to them that day.

Most of the people who contacted city staff after the first mailing, as well as those who spoke at a public hearing held by the city’s planning board last month, wanted to know if the city intended to annex the area or if the action would affect school assignments. The answer to both questions is no.

Nuttall suggested at Thursday’s meeting that the council could grant preliminary approval to reduce the ETJ, then revisit the issue at its December meeting, scheduling another public hearing limited to individuals who received late notice.

Instead, council members took no action on the issue and voted to continue the ETJ public hearing until the council’s next regular meeting, which will be on Dec. 6. Anyone will have the chance to address the council at that time. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. and will be held in the city’s Public Works Facility conference room.

“This is a monumental step for us to take,” Mayor David Smith said at Thursday’s meeting. “It’s not something that we take lightly and ultimately the authority for ETJ has been granted by the state for a reason … I believe it would be prudent to defer this discussion to the next council meeting and make sure that we don’t rush into this.”

State law enacted in the 1950s, when few counties regulated land use, was designed to give cities a hand in the development of areas that might become urban and need city services in the future.

Asheboro established its ETJ in the 1970s. It was expanded in 1987, shortly before Randolph County put zoning regulations into place.

Asheboro council members first visited the issue in August, directing city staff to continue developing a plan to reduce the ETJ.

At that time, Nuttall told council members that conversations about the change began after state legislators adopted a new law on city-initiated statutory annexations (also known as forced annexations) earlier in the summer.

Formerly, a municipality was allowed to annex an area close to its boundaries if those areas met certain criteria, whether residents favored such a move or not. Now, if a city pursues an annexation using that method, a referendum must be held. A majority of the registered voters in the proposed area must support the annexation for it to proceed.

“They are going to be more costly to undertake — and more unpredictable,” Nuttall said then.

Nuttall also noted that legislative bills pertaining to ETJ areas had received support in either the state House or Senate but had not become law. Among them were a House bill that would have prohibited future extension of an ETJ into an area subject to county zoning rules and a Senate bill that would have exempted farming properties from zoning laws in an ETJ.

“It’s an issue on the minds of the state legislators and probably will continue to be so,” Nuttall said.

Nuttall said Friday that when city planning staff decided which areas to keep in the proposed ETJ, the same question came up time and again: Is that really a realistic area for the city to grow into?

“Should those property owners continue to be subject to city rules if we don’t have a realistic plan to provide city services to them?” Nuttall asked.

Council member Walker Moffitt noted during Thursday’s meeting that he thought city staff had done its work well.

“I think the staff has done an excellent job of identifying growth areas that the city can get to in a legitimate and feasible manner,” Moffitt said.

State law gives a county 60 days to zone land when a city relinquishes its ETJ rights.

Hal Johnson, director of the county’s planning and zoning department, said his staff is prepared to handle the change if it happens, despite the large number of properties involved.

“To my knowledge,” Johnson said, “it would be the largest release of a city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction in North Carolina at one time.”

Johnson said he also supports the idea philosophically.

“I have always felt that extraterritorial jurisdiction is contrary to the democratic principle. They cannot vote for those officials that are regulating them. In a way, I think this is a good thing the city is considering.”

Johnson said county staff would try to replace city zoning designations with comparable county designations. “We would not take something away,” he said.

He noted, however, that residents might face stricter enforcement in some areas. One example, he said, is the county’s enforcement of its rule that prohibits junk cars.

Mayor Smith said there a several facts and factors, including the city not having the manpower to fully enforce city zoning rules outside its boundaries, that make discussion of reducing the ETJ logical.

“But I’m not sure I want to do it,” he said. “I’m kind of on the fence.”

He also acknowledges that he does not have a vote in the matter. He simply wants those who do to consider the action very carefully.

“This is a very unusual approach and possibly a knee-jerk reaction to things in Raleigh,” he said. “I understand why we’re doing it, but I want to make sure 10 years from now or 20 years from now, we don’t say, ‘Boy, did we make a mistake.’

“I’m concerned that we can’t undo it it if we decide we made a mistake and want it back. We won’t be able to get it back.”